THIS IS AN ARCHIVE OF LAKE TAHOE NEWS, WHICH WAS OPERATIONAL FROM 2009-2018. IT IS FREELY AVAILABLE FOR RESEARCH. THE WEBSITE IS NO LONGER UPDATED WITH NEW ARTICLES.

Opinion: GOP platform contains world’s strictest abortion policy


image_pdfimage_print

By Joel Brinkley

Costa Rican women are appealing to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights to overturn a national law banning in-vitro fertilization.

The state’s national ombudsman, Ofelia Taitelbaum, started the process, saying “people will understand that this is about rights” that are appropriate for “our times.”

In the worldwide debate over abortion and women’s rights, this might seem like an unusual law. After all, in-vitro fertilization actually creates life. But Costa Rica is heavily Catholic; more than 76 percent of its people identify themselves as Roman Catholic, and the Vatican openly opposes in-vitro fertilization, widely known as IVF.

When British scientist Robert Edwards won the 2010 Nobel Prize for his development of in-vitro fertilization therapy, Monsignor Ignacio Carrasco, the Vatican’s spokesman for bioethics, declared that because of IVF, “a large number of freezers” in the world are “filled with embryos. In the best of cases they are transferred into a uterus, but most probably will end up abandoned or dead.”

The odd thing is that Costa Rica is one of Latin America’s most progressive nations, a true, longtime democracy that has one of the region’s more liberal abortion policies. The state allows abortion in cases that are important to the woman’s physical or mental health.

Last year, the United Nations published a study of abortion and related policies worldwide and found that the most restrictive laws are in Latin America. But in truth, the study’s findings show that the United States would be home to the world’s most restrictive abortion policy – if the Republican Party has its way.

The party’s platform calls for a constitutional amendment that would forbid abortion under all circumstances. The U.N. study shows that only four of the world’s 230 states have similarly restrictive policies – El Salvador, Nicaragua, Chile and the Dominican Republic. All of them are predominantly Roman Catholic.

The Vatican firmly opposes contraception and abortion. About 95 percent of Dominicans are Catholic, for example, while fewer than one-quarter of Americans identify themselves as members of that faith.

But the Republican position takes the prohibition even further. Mitt Romney and many other Republicans are promising to eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood, the organization that provides health care services for poor women nationwide – including abortion referrals in most of its offices.

Well, even those four Latin American nations that forbid abortion under any circumstances all provide government-funded family-planning services, the United Nations reported. So do Iran, Bangladesh, North Korea and East Timor, the Southeast Asian country that is the world’s most heavily Catholic state. Only 2 percent of Timorese identify with another faith.

In August, a federal appeals court ruled that Texas can end financing for Planned Parenthood clinics. The state’s Republican-controlled Legislature had passed a law last year forbidding state funding for any organization affiliated with abortion providers.

All of this seems to be another big problem for Romney, who has been self-immolating over the last few weeks. A recent Gallup poll showed a continuing gender gap in President Obama’s favor. Female voters preferred Obama by eight percentage points, and the Democrats are seizing on that, running ads about the Republicans’ “war on women.”

The truth is that if the Republicans were to get their way, many American women wanting or needing an abortion would certainly turn to back-alley abortionists, which would be an extremely dangerous turn for American society.

“Unsafe abortions continue to be widespread, and nearly all are performed in developing countries” where abortion is restricted, the United Nations said. The World Health Organization reported that in 2003, back-alley practitioners performed 19.7 million abortions worldwide. That number rose to 21.6 million in 2008, the last year for which statistics are available.

The United Nations added, “globally, it’s estimated that 47,000 women lose their lives each year from the complications from unsafe abortions, almost all of which could have been prevented through better access to sexuality education.”

No other nation in the Western world restricts abortion as severely as the Republican Party platform advocates. In fact, the U.N. study shows that since 1996, far more nations have been liberalizing their abortion policies than restricting them – by a factor of more than 4 to 1.

However, it also adds that some states impose policy conditions that might not be reflected in actual law, among them a compulsory waiting period, parental or spousal consent or mandatory counseling. It did not report that any other countries order invasive ultrasound examinations before an abortion is permitted, another favored Republican proposal.

Will the Republicans get their way? Not likely. Most Americans, women particularly, adamantly oppose that.

Joel Brinkley, a professor of journalism at Stanford University, is a Pulitzer Prize-winning former foreign correspondent for the New York Times.

 

image_pdfimage_print

About author

This article was written by admin

Comments

Comments (11)
  1. Biggerpicture says - Posted: October 15, 2012

    A successful GOP platform would equate to an uneducated, unhealthy, non-voting populace!

  2. N says - Posted: October 15, 2012

    EVERYONE BETTER WAKE UP, ESPECIALY WOMEN, MOTHERS, DAUGHTERS, GRANDMOTHERS, SISTERS.
    My mother died from complications of one thoses so called “Back alley abortions” in the early 60’s. I was a 1 1/2 years old, She also had two more small children and a husband ( my father& father both siblings) at home. She was 29 years old. My brother and sister came in to find her bleeding to death, literally. This was such a hush, hush situation that I was spared ( I guess you can say) the details until I was a grown women. Crazier things have happen, if they (this Republician party) get their day they will fight for this to happen to other families. Wow, has there been crazier things, I’m not sure, but. I do know that this WOMAN, MOTHER, DAUGHTER, SISTER, NIECE, AUNT and GRANDMOTHER (SOMEDAY I CAN ONLY HOPE), will vote to NOT let it happen.

  3. nature bats last says - Posted: October 15, 2012

    Just suppose that they stop all forms of birth control (which is what they want)and there are millions of more unwanted and abused children brought into this country. And there are no social services to help these children. Is every one of those GOP patriarchs going to adopt these unwanted kids. You bet they are not. I think every one of these GOP hot air bags better pony up and get fixed so that they dont contribute to the problem. Oops, they already are. They make me SICK!!!!!

  4. N says - Posted: October 15, 2012

    Really? Iam surprise to see more of the regulars havent given their two cents? Uhm interesting

  5. N says - Posted: October 16, 2012

    Mitt Romney Repeats Call for Overturning Roe v. Wade
    by Steven Ertelt | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 4/17/12 6:44 PM

    In a Monday night interview with ABC’s “World News with Diane Sawyer,” likely Republican nominee Mitt Romney again repeated his call for overturning the Roe v. Wade decision.
    During the interview, Sawyer, with a scowling look on her face, asked Romney what he would tell women about repealing Roe and taking away their so-called right to have an abortion that Sawyer said they have supposedly enjoyed for 40 years. Romney responded saying he wants the Supreme Court to reverse the decision

    “If there was any doubt that Mitt Romney would be an anti-choice president, that doubt should now be gone,” its web site said in response. “This is not the first time Gov. Romney has expressed his desire to see Roe v. Wade overturned. I guess in Mitt’s America, a woman’s right to choose safe, legal abortion care would depend on the whims of politicians in her state capital.”

    “And as president, Romney could appoint enough Supreme Court justices to make his dream of overturning Roe v. Wade a reality,” NARAL complained.

    Just saying, well actully thats what he said.

  6. Dogula says - Posted: October 16, 2012

    So all you folks think that the fact that Romney is pro-life trumps ALL of Obama’s failed policies over the past four years?
    Do you REALLY think that Romney will try to take away your right to birth control? That is an absurd scare tactic. What SHOULD scare you is the fact that we have spent alarming sums of money on bogus technologies and driven ourselves deeper in debt than we ever dreamed we could be. We are in serious trouble in the middle east because none of those countries that Obama bows to have any fear of, nor respect for, the U.S. anymore. Medical insurance costs have gone UP for those of us who pay for it by at least 25%. And most of us, if we are still working, are actually making LESS money than we were before Obama took over.
    Yet you think that a pro-life President would be more dangerous for the country?
    Please.

  7. John says - Posted: October 16, 2012

    Dogula, here are the facts. The President can have a very real effect on abortion law through their selection of Supreme Court nominees. The President has almost no effect on the economy. On economic matters the president is really only a cheerleader. If you doubt that then look up the famous study about the 4 hours when polls were leaked and it appearedd John Kerry was the President Elect. The fact is during that 4 hours the commodities and stock market hardly reacted. The markets know that the president hardly matters on such issues. http://www.freakonomics.com/2010/11/04/freakonomics-radio-how-much-does-the-president-really-matter/

  8. Dogula says - Posted: October 16, 2012

    That’s the reason we have 3 separate branches of government, John. But when the President gets to nominate 2 (Kagen, Sotomayer) judges to the Supremes who bend in his direction, and has both the House and Senate controlled by his party, as Obama did during his first 2 years, he can wreak absolute havoc with the country.
    And he did.

  9. TheTruth says - Posted: October 16, 2012

    Ronald Reagan cut taxes, but never cut spending as he promised. He tripled the national debt. George H.W. Bush cut taxes, but never cut spending as he promised. He doubled the debt again.

    Bill Clinton raised taxes on the wealthiest 2% of taxpayers. He balanced the budget and ran a surplus. Republicans predicted a recession; instead we had the longest period of uninterrupted growth in our nation’s history.

    George W. Bush cut taxes and increased spending. He doubled the national debt and left office with the first trillion-dollar deficit in history.

    Mitt Romney says he will cut taxes and cut spending. He won’t say what spending he will cut. If he’s elected, he might have a mandate to cut taxes, but not to cut spending because he is not running on specific spending cuts.

    The Republican strategy has long been to cut taxes (which is easy), dodge spending cuts, and let the debt get so large that a future congress will be forced to cut benefits.

    Messrs. Romney and Ryan claim that the government has “no choice” but to cut “entitlements.” If so, it’s the result of the clever game Republicans have been playing.

    We have a 15 trillion dollar debt because of the ongoing Republican game of chicken. Most of the debt problem would go away if the Bush tax cuts expired.

  10. John says - Posted: October 16, 2012

    TheTruth, there was a South Pacific tribe that recognized that the number of lice on a person would decrease right before the person died. It was obvious that lice caused good health and so one of their medical treatments would be to place lice onto sick people. That is the classic example of misattributed causation when in fact there was only correlation. Your first four sentences are just like the lice above. I agree the economic uptick or downturn occured during the Presidential term you state. It is laughable to think that those presidents had anything to do with it though. Do you really think Clinton caused the “irrational exuberance” of the internet stocks? The sale of those stocks increased tax collections that caused a temporary surplus. Clinton didn’t have a thing in this world to do with that. It is also true Bush 1 wasn’t responsible for the internet bubble to pop and the reduction in tax collections.

  11. John says - Posted: October 16, 2012

    I meant Bush 2 of course.